9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done after the Tribunal went into the standards terms and conditions of the business with the wholesale buyers and after appreciating the witness statements made and particularly retractions made from the said statements in cross-examination - Tribunal found that the case of the Department had not in fact been made out. Apart from this, the Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of this Court in ITC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi & Anr.[ 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and found that on a reading of the said judgment, the alternative submission of the respondent was also made out. We do not find any error in the said judgment either on fact or on law. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No(s). 5617/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll knowledge that the retail packet would not be sold in accordance with the price declaration made thereon. It was, therefore, alleged that the extra money over and above the prices shown in the invoices was being collected in respect of sale of various brands of cigarettes and extra amount so collected was passed on to the retailers and wholesale dealers and subsequently in cash to the persons described as Super Buyers who were large wholesale purchasers. The learned Collector ultimately found on facts that the Department's case was made out by statements of as many as 44 witnesses who were ultimately cross-examined by M/s. GTC Industries Ltd.. These statements were taken from a large number of persons including wholesalers and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... super buyer. From the affidavit filed by GTC, it is seen that even in the year in which the deposit was made, the turnover of the super buyer was 12 to 15 times of the amount of deposit. However, the deposit scheme was not unique to GTC as several other companies were taking similar deposit and this fact is brought out in the order dated 5th May, 1994 of the Collector of Customs, Mumbai wherein the proceedings raised against GTC were dropped. Even in the case not covered by deposit scheme and where the payment was not made in time, interest at the rate of 18% was being charged by GTC, which is more or less corresponding to differential interest under security deposit scheme. Therefore, the differential interest cannot be considered a ploy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
